A Chewbacca Defense is part of an argument that intentionally or unintentionally has the effect of confusing the opponent so that they will stop arguing with you. If they are too chicken to continue the argument, the point they are trying to argue must be equally as flimsy, right? Right?

Foxnews talks about Justice Breyer ‘s dissent on the Heller decision.

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison,” said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison’s priority as, “I’ve got to get this document ratified.”

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

“If you’re interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story,” Breyer said. “If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us.

I think it’s a good thing. For almost 20 years, from the 80’s (remember teflon bullets?), the 90’s (which gave us the “Assault Weapons” Ban) those of us who have a weapon or would like to own one had to put up with BS.

When pressed for stats, driving kills more than guns. But the media loves to hype “assault weapons.” Politicians love to appear to be doing something, bureaucrats love to expand their power and some ‘citizen’ love to go on a crusade.

But the truth is that they are attacking law abiding citizens. If they told the public what they really think they’d never get anti-gun laws passed. So they lie. They hype, they dance on the graves of the dead. Many gun ‘control’ groups are the first to jump into action after a shooting. Never mind that violent shootings (while tragedies) are rare. Never mind that most of the guns and rifles in private hands don’t get fired all that often.

So on it goes. Made up arguments about the origin, meaning and intent of the founders. Of “well regulated”. If they can win via elections or the courts or by a good argument, they will riddle us with BS.

Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon has jumped on the bandwagon fired up by the US deficit reduction panel, which last month recommended eliminating the Lockheed Martin F-35 and BellBoeing V-22.

The F-22 was canceled because of the chattering class that called it a “cold war era” fighter. Some claimed that existing aircraft were enough, that we’d never have to fight another war against a real air force.

The problem is that the F-35 is having major teething pains. All project do so some extent. However, the DOD wants 3 aircraft out of one: a conventional fighter for the Air Force, a carrier version for the Navy and a VTOL (think harrier) for the Marines.

Lockheed has to admit that having over 50% commonality between version was a pipe dream (the real figure is lower). Other problems about.

Will the pundits kill the F-35? Of course they’ll try. They’ll trot out the same arguments. Many call for building more F-16s/F-15s. The argument that we don’t have to update our aircraft died out when F-15’s started to fall from the sky due to metal fatigue. Our fleet is aging and re-builds will only delay the their retirement (and may even cost as much or more than a new aircraft).

The tired argument of using the F-22’s radar in existing aircraft has been around since the early 90’s. Many a book was filled with “experts” saying that the F-15 and F-16 can keep working until…some date in the future.

The PAK-FA and the J-XX from Russia and China mean that we have to step up our game. Either we build aircraft that can kill the enemy or we go back to Korean war when foreign air forces strafed our military. Yes, it’s been that long as Lex reminds us.

Lockheed needs a new Ben Rich. Someone who can light a fire under the program. Why is the software so bad? Why is the aircraft gaining weight? Instead of shilling for Lockheed, the Administration should hold their feet to the fire.

Just flat out canceling the program will not fix the problem.

The left and the deficit hawks won’t let another aircraft fly. At least for a while. While new F-16’s and F-15 may buy us 5-10 years, we need new aircraft.

Notice:

This site is in no way affiliated with the Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, White Sands Missile Range, or any other government agency. Nothing said herein should be considered to have any official sanction by those agencies.
You Mileage may vary, dates in calender are closer than they appear.